Democrats are moving quickly after their midterm gains, rather than waiting to see whether the shift in power lasts.
Republican losses this month were significant, but they were hardly unprecedented. The party lost about 46 seats, fewer than the losses suffered by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Barack Obama, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton during their presidencies. Obama, despite major setbacks, went on to win a second term. A rebound for Republicans is possible, too.
Still, some Democrats appear eager to use their new influence to reshape the political system. Their proposals include weakening the Electoral College, which critics say would give large, heavily Democratic states such as California and New York more sway over presidential elections.
For years, academics and political commentators have discussed sweeping changes to the country’s institutions. Among the ideas are eliminating the Senate filibuster, admitting Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as states, and expanding the Supreme Court. Opponents argue that these steps could remove protections for political minorities and make it easier to enact policies that courts might otherwise reject.
Harvard professor Michael Klarman has outlined changes he believes could make it much harder for Republicans to win elections. He has also warned that the Supreme Court could block such measures, prompting arguments that the court would need to be expanded first. That agenda, as its supporters see it, would be difficult to pursue with a Republican president.
Democrats know they are unlikely to gain a veto-proof majority in Congress. Their prospects would improve, however, with a president willing to support changes to the court, the states and the constitutional system.
That may be more plausible now. Democrats have won several governor’s races, and supporters of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact may see an opening to persuade more states to join.
The compact commits participating states to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The Electoral College was designed in part to ensure that smaller states and less populous regions could not simply be ignored by candidates focused on the largest population centers.
I used to be more critical of the Electoral College, especially when a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election. I still understand why many Americans favor choosing presidents by national popular vote. But the current push for broader changes has made me reconsider whether abandoning the system now would be wise.
The compact’s constitutionality has not been tested. Critics argue that it could amount to a major change to the Constitution without going through the amendment process set out in Article V. The Supreme Court has described the Constitution as establishing carefully designed procedures to balance power and guard against its concentration. The compact’s opponents say it sidesteps those safeguards.
A decade ago, I might have welcomed the effort. Today, I find it troubling.
The country is politically volatile, and public anger is often encouraged by politicians. But I’m also concerned by prominent voices who dismiss constitutional traditions as outdated and criticize those who favor gradual change.
Some of the more radical proposals now being discussed echo ideas associated with the French Revolution, including calls for a single legislative chamber and more direct popular rule. The American and French revolutions began in the same era, but their outcomes diverged sharply: the United States developed into a lasting republic, while France descended into the Reign of Terror.
Thomas Paine, who was involved in both revolutionary movements, supported some measures aimed at expanding direct democracy. He later came to regret aspects of that position as the French Revolution turned violent. The American founders, wary of unchecked majority rule, warned that democracy could become what Benjamin Rush called a “mobocracy.”
There are legitimate arguments for electing presidents by popular vote. But as proposals to alter the country’s institutions gain support, voters should consider the wider consequences. The founders’ system has flaws, yet dismantling its safeguards could bring risks that are difficult to reverse.
